Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
You don’t sit down to “interview” or “debate” fascists, not unless it’s an excuse to get within brick to the skull distance of them.
I can see the value of debating fascist, as long as you’re not trying to debate in good faith. If a fascist invites you to sit down for a televised debate, it’s an opportunity to practice hostile, belittling techniques. Don’t try to use logic, feel free to cut loose and shower them with emotional degradation and every fallacy you can think of. Steamroll them, laugh in their face, liberally use terms like “boot-licking cuck boy”. It’s pretty fun honestly, especially if you’re the type of person who always avoids disingenuous debate tactics.
Fascism relies on posturing, looking like the strong man against the weak enemy. Making a fascist look meek and pathetic is the most effective tool if you’re trying to crush their influence. No one wants to follow a fascist that looks like a floundering loser.
This can easily backfire, though. The fascist will rarely start the debate by glorifying the Third Reich. Instead, he will start off by lamenting the state of the working class, or complain about foreign policy, and only progressively reveal his true agenda. Showing contempt for him at this stage could be interpreted as contempt for these issues.
What the fascist attempts to do in these debates is to acquire legitimacy, since their political position sits outside the overton window. Using logical fallacies against him is to basically hand him that legitimacy for free by making him appear “reasonable”. The easiest solution to all this is not to debate them at all.
Eh, that seems equivalent to saying gardening can backfire because you could stab yourself in the foot with a pitchfork or something. You can show contempt for their solutions while acknowledging the problems. Obviously, if you suck at rhetoric you shouldn’t get into debates in the first place.
The sort of people who are swayed by fascist rhetoric aren’t the sort that have a keen eye for reasonableness and logical fallacy. It’s an emotional stance based on posturing. Weakness is a far greater sin to the fascist than irrationality.
That’s not a solution at all. If no one pushes back on their messaging, they get implicit control of the narrative. That’s a lot harder to do when their audience tunes in to watch their idol own the libs, but then see him get dog walked.
You don’t. But normal people do. Also why are you out of .ml there might be different opinions out here
Shitty way to act when someone drops a normal opinion. Don’t be tribalistic
The fact that it’s a normal opinion now doesn’t mean it’s a good opinion. It’s people like this. ml user that is partially responsible for how bad things are now.
It’s like when the department of forest management decided to stop doing controlled burns. It let a lot of dead fall collect and become fuel for the largest forest fires.
Users like this seem benign but they are not. Played right into the hands of right wing groups.
We broadly agree about .ml as a whole, but not on how you’re treating this individual. You don’t convince anyone of anything this way, it makes them identify more strongly with whatever you’re attacking. That, too, is part of how we got to this ruinous moment. Prejudice, in a word.
In any case, debating fascists has always been a bad idea. Fascists are not good faith participants in any debate, and their seat at the table only ever serves to normalise their twisted views, and spoil any chance at the healthy interplay of competing ideas.
Hard disagree in that not debating fascists is the bad idea. It’s why it’s such an astro turfed opinion. There is nothing that normalizes their views more then being able to spread their views uncontested. They want all these social platforms to be truth social. The left allows that when they ignore them
Prove the opinion is being astroturfed, and I’ll change my view.
What do you need to believe it. What would you expect to see if something is astroturfed. :::
I don’t have ready examples of astroturfing for you, but I’m willing to be convinced in either direction; hit me with whatever you saw that made up your mind.
the .ml user is absolutely correct in this specific case.
typical .world user